How can we account for uniformity in nature?

Question

Definition of Uniformity in nature: things like the Laws of nature. For example, the law of biogenesis, the laws of planetary motion, the laws of chemistry. Universal Constants
Additionally, there are many physical constants of nature. These are parameters within the laws of physics which set the strengths of the fundamental forces (such as gravity), and the masses of fundamental particles (such as electrons). As with the laws of physics, some constants depend on others, whereas some constants are likely fundamental—God alone has set their value. These constants are essential for life. In many cases, if the fundamental constants had a slightly different value, life would not be possible. For example, if the strength of the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly altered, molecules could not exist. But back to the question, how can you account for these things? If you don't, wouldn't you be arbitrarily asserting them? Without uniformity in nature, science would not exist--if you don't account for uniformity in nature (if you don't have a basis) then that is arbitrary, and thus irrational. W/out uniformity in nature, each time an experiment was performed, the result would vary, thus destroying the possibility of knowledge.
Evolution cannot account for uniformity in nature.


Possible rebuttal: "The earth is in a solar system--of course there is going to be uniformity."


Atheists have no reason to believe that the laws of nature will not change; things change. Why should the laws of nature be an exception?


Possible Rebuttal: "The earth has had uniformity in nature, so I expect it will."


I have never died before, so I expect I never will. That is actually circular reasoning. This answer already assumes that the future reflects the past; it is vicious circular reasoning,. Any time you usepast experience as a basis for what will probably happen in the future,you are assuming that the future reflects the past. You can't therefore merely use this assumption to prove that the future will be like the past.


You might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in aregular fashion; in other words, uniformity is just a property of theuniverse. This answer fails for several reasons. First, it doesn'treally answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of theuniverse, but the question is why? What would be the basis for such aproperty in an evolutionary worldview? I ask how you (an evolutionist)could possible know that uniformity is a property of he universe. At best, you can only say that the universe -- in the past -- seems to have had some uniformity. But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not?

Another last resort response: "Well, I can't really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, so we use it."

This answers also fails for two reasons. First, we can only argue thatuniformity seems o have worked in the past; there's no guarantee itwill continue to work in the future unless we already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. They couldn't even get out of bed without making this assumption.

Second, anyone using this answer has admitted that uniformity is without justification in the evolutionary worldview -- which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent -- that is, if they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.

Answer 1

The uniformity of nature is neither an argument, nor a rebuttal, to theism or atheism. The uniformity of nature is a fact of nature we need to explain. How does belief explain it? Your belief does not explain it in a rational way, but by recourse to a trans-rational, extra-rational, or non-rational way by presupposing a God who's order we don't need to explain. The recourse to an order outside of the universal order to explain the universal order doesn't seem to answer the question of order but leads to the problem of infinite regress.



On a side note, evolutionists and atheists are not interchangeable terms. The very laws of the universal order that underwrite this uniformity of nature all point to the fact that evolution has happened. The precise methods of evolution are still being debated, but the fact of evolution is not. No one is using biblical creationists principles outside of the fact there is order, which isn't really a biblical principle but a fact of reality. All the facts found from the study of the universal order lead to evolution, from the age of the Earth to cosmological models of the early universe leading to the formation of the heavy materials. The Catholic church, a sizable chunk of the Christian world, actually has said that evolution and the biblical creation story are both true.



On another side note, you seem to assume the debate is between Christians and evolutionists (which are atheists in your book) while somehow missing all the other religions on the planet. Why not say atheists need to accept the Islamic creation worldview? Why not the Hindu creation worldview? Why not the Jewish worldview? Don't these groups have a claim or answer to the uniformity of nature, which you deny atheists have? This is largely a side issue to the real debate, but it does show the vast number of assumptions assumed within your argument.

Answer 2

The 'stumping the scientists' game has been going on as long as science has been a tool. Scientists then work to understand and figure things out. The more knowledge we acquire the more complex the questions become. Just because the processes seem impossible to understand at the moment does not mean we have to attribute everything to a god. In my opinion that complicates the matter exponentially.

Where did god come from? What made 'him'? Why did he(!) decide to use uniformity? What purpose does space dust billions of light years away have in the grand scheme of things?

And hundreds of 'psychological' style questions... Why evil? Why the tyrannical worship? Why the inconsistencies in the bible? Why bother with the world and why not just have us settle in heaven where there are no games and we're all good and happy? Why so many different religions? etc... When you turn to those questions you come to a point where you have to use the answer 'Just because god wants it that way'.

I'd rather go the science route as they've been marching toward answers for a long long time while the religious seem to be more interested in shooting holes in the progress. In science no god is the right one, no one is going to hell. No one has to live in fear wondering whether 'dancing' is a sin or pretending they don't have a crush on someone as it might be an impure thought. No one has to speak in tongues or be exorcised. (Notice atheists never seem to be possessed by demons, curious.)

Back to your argument. This seems like one of those world stopping ideas like Achilles' paradox. We can't move because there are an infinite number of steps to get there. Well, we do move and the paradox is fun but not realistic. Maybe you can sympathize with the 'Can god make anything more powerful than himself?' paradox. The bottom line for me is: stuff happens and scientific processes can and will explain it all.

Answer 3

So I guess your asking why nature tends to repeat itself in a uniform pattern, in contrast to utter abstraction, or maniacal chaos?



1. http://www.bittbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/abstract_brushes_2.jpg



2. http://www.phong.com/tutorials/mask.tree/tree.jpg



In these two pictures we see how abstraction contrasts a very well known reality, we associate with the word "Tree" however, finding any two trees that are exactly alike is like finding two fingerprints that are exactly a like.



The three philosophical (not mathematical) reasons why I believe there is uniformity over utter abstraction are as followed:

I think the 1) universe works with an "absolute" bunch of properties, but the mixture of them is infinite in number 2) causation, the law of cause and effect, the way it is set up does not permit for a highly chaotic system, that is higher then it already is! 3) Consistency of pattern is very important in the existence of our consciousness.



I don't know how to explain it in any other way, seeing as my understanding of biological uniformity isn't very great.



"...they couldn't even get out of bed without making this assumption."

That is what is called an induction, made based on knowledge of prior uniformity. For example one doesn't doubt the existence of a shadow normally, they just induce that it is there for a reason. Like wise you can induce that the desk your computer is sitting on has legs, even though you are not consciously aware of it all the time.

Answer 4

You want to believe so very much! - Go ahead, but stop trying to prove

your belief by specious circular argument.

That uniformity, those laws and relationships that you cite simply 'are as they are'.

That we know, and recognize that we don't yet know why.

'Pure chance' is as acceptible an answer as the one you propose.

It is irrational to assert an unsupported 'reason' for them, to which you are, I am sure

ready to attribute all sorts of other properties, equally irrational.

The only basis for your view is that you choose to hold it. - Good luck with it.